1

Introduction and Review

When one first learns physics, there is usually little discussion of geometry. The
nature of space and time is taken to be self-evident; there are three independent
dimensions of space (length, width, height) that is the same everywhere.

Considering a basic physics problem one usually begins with defining three
perpendicular axes to which reference is made. When finding the distance between
points one employs the Pythagorean Theorem. This usually entails finding the length
of the vector that begins at one point and ends on another. To find the length, one
squares each component (𝑣𝑥2 , 𝑣𝑦2 , 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑣𝑧2 ), adds them, and takes the square root. As
long as the directions (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑧) form right angles at each point this is identically
the Pythagorean Theorem.

The other quantity taken to be obvious is the measurement of time. Time always
flows into the future at the same rate for everyone. By taking these notions of space
and time as evident, one has implicitly assumed the underlying geometry of space
and time. Space is three-dimensional adhering to the rules of geometry set forth by
Euclid (parallel lines never cross, etc.) and is hence called Euclidean geometry. Time
is represented by a number line, a one-dimensional space where all points to one side
of a point labeled NOW is called the past and those on the other side are called the
future. In basic physics (mostly set forth by Isaac Newton and hence called
Newtonian or classical physics) three-dimensional space is unrelated to time – they
are distinct entities.

The modern view of relativity is one that modifies the previous statements. By
insisting upon consistency within all areas of physics for all observers, one is forced
to use a different geometry underlying physics. First, one cannot consider space and
 3

time as separate entities but as belonging to a four-dimensional geometrical

structure, we call spacetime. The geometry of spacetime is found not to be Euclidean
but something else. Getting comfortable with this new geometry is what makes
relativity seemingly difficult to understand. This new geometry also introduces
strange phenomena that seem counterintuitive and strange, but have all been
experimentally verified many times over. Why it is difficult for us to comprehend is
that these effects are only significant for motions close to the speed of light – a realm
that we do not have everyday experience with it.

Once the geometry of spacetime is accepted one proceeds in developing physics

just as before. Since the underlying geometry influences how things are measured,
it will effect all realms of physics. Thus, one must treat physical notions with care.
It is found that many, if not all, principles of Newtonian physics must be modified
or abandoned.
 4

Classical Physics:

 Mechanics (Newton’s laws, Energy, Momentum, Universal Law of

Gravitation)
 Wave Mechanics (simple harmonic motion, sound).
 Fluid Mechanics (Bernoulli’s law, Archimedes’ Principle).
 Thermodynamics (4 laws of thermodynamics, energy, work, heat, entropy).
 Electricity and Magnetism (Coulomb’s law, Electric fields/potential, Gauss’
Law, Ohm’s law, Circuits, Magnetic forces/fields, Induction, Maxwell’s
equations, EM waves, light).
 Optics (Geometric optics, lens systems, waves, interference, diffraction).

Relativity:

 Special relativity (kinematics: time dilation, length contraction, spacetime

interval invariance, dynamics: momentum, energy, collision, E&M, fluids).
 General relativity (gravitation as curved space, Schwarzschild solution, black
holes, cosmology).

Quantum Mechanics:

 Atomic physics, spectra, energy levels, photoelectric effect, Bohr’s model,

wave functions, Heisenberg uncertainty principle, Schrödinger equation,
Hydrogen atom, Atomic, molecular, and nuclear physics.

Quantum Field Theory:

 Elementary particles, Feynman rules, S-matrix, the Standard Model, Higgs

physics.
 5

Quantum Gravity:

Quantum Mechanics + General Relativity, no known theory yet, string theory,

loop theory, M theory, Theory of Everything, quantum aspects of black holes.

The theory of relativity often falls under the classification of “modern physics”
even though it is almost 100 years old. However, this theory is the underpinning of
many of the recent ballyhooed exotic theories; superstring theory, quantum gravity,
loop quantum gravity, M-theory, etc. To begin to understand these extremely
sophisticated ideas, a sound foundation in special and general relativity is necessary.
The other theory that is the basis of all of the new physics is quantum mechanics.
Quantum mechanics (85-100 years old) is a mathematically complex, extremely
non-intuitive theory, the meaning and philosophy of which is still not understood.
Without quantum mechanics, most of today’s technology would not be possible.

To understand the basic building blocks of nature, it becomes necessary to

combine quantum mechanics and special relativity (into a theory called quantum
field theory (QFT)). QFT is behind the development of the Standard Model, to date
our best interpretation of the forces and particles of nature. However, the Standard
Model has one omission – general relativity. Without its inclusion, it can not be a
theory that can describe the entire universe. The earliest attempts to include general
relativity with quantum mechanics met with failure. To this date, no other attempts
have been successful. The search for a quantum theory of gravity is the primary
theoretical goal of physics. The exotic theories discussed above are all attempts to
carry this out. While none has been demonstrated to be correct, they have not been
eliminated yet. The problem of developing a unified theory of all forces, including
gravity, is of such difficulty that most agree it will require a revolution in thinking
about our universe. Such a revolution may make the early revolutions of relativity
and quantum theory seem trivial.
 6

Why Relativity?

To begin we will review classical mechanics. You should already be familiar with
most of what we will discuss in the beginning of this lecture. Physics is the study of
how objects behave and interact. In order to provide an unambiguous quantitative
description of nature it is necessary to define the basic observations that are made,
position and time. Other measurements are abstractions based on the position and
time measurements. Assigning each object a position and a time, the goal is to devise
a scheme to predict where the objects will be at a later time. These two basic
measurements are made. In order to relate positions and times of several objects a
coordinate system is constructed. Without the coordinate system, there is no way to
construct meaningful statements relating different objects. Though a coordinate
system is crucial to make a quantitative description, it in no way affects the motion
or interaction of the objects. It is a construct removed from the real world. Any
properly defined coordinate system is capable of describing the system. In
mechanics, a properly defined coordinate system is one that has three perpendicular
spatial directions, (usually called (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑧)), and a zero for time. Locating the
origin and orientation of the axis is sufficient to make quantitative measurements.
 7

Position and time may be the fundamental observations made but they are not the
most practical to use for relating measurements. For two different observers
measuring the position of two objects the values may not come out the same. In order
to relate measurements in different frames, it is best to reference positions in relation
to other physical objects (not necessarily to your ‘non-physical’ coordinate system).
Observe that in Alice’s frame and Bob’s frame the positions of the two objects are
not the same in the two frames. However, the magnitude of the displacement, or the
distance, between the objects is the same for each (even when one frame is in motion
with respect to the other).

To catalogue positions of objects, it is necessary to derive mathematical relations

describing their movement, which can only be done once a coordinate system is
established. This goes by the name kinematics. To derive these relations the concepts
of displacement, speed, velocity, and acceleration need to be defined in terms of
positions and times. It is assumed you are thoroughly familiar with these quantities.

For motion that is at most moving with constant acceleration, the following
equations can describe the trajectories of an object in one frame of reference.

1
𝑟⃗ = 𝑟⃗0 + 𝑣⃗0 ∆𝑡 + 𝑎⃗ ∆𝑡 2
2

𝑣⃗ = 𝑣⃗0 + 𝑎⃗ ∆𝑡

∆𝑟⃗
𝑣⃗ =
∆𝑡

∆𝑣⃗
𝑎⃗ =
∆𝑡

where 𝑟0 and 𝑣0 are the position and velocity at some fixed time (say 𝑡 = 0).These
equations describe the motion of an object which is not interacting with any other
 8

objects. To describe the motion a coordinate system is set up with a zero for time
defined. This is usually done from your own perspective. You might choose the
origin at your feet, and look at your watch and designate 𝑡 = 0 s at some instant.
However, if there is another making observation then that person might choose
another coordinate system and it is important to relate the two observations.

 Scenario 1: Two reference frames at rest with respect to each other.

If Alice and Bob are at rest with respect to each other but are separated in space
by a vector 𝑅, and they choose different times to set 𝑡 = 0 then it should be clear
that they each measure the same speed and magnitude of acceleration for a nearby
object. However, the velocities and accelerations will be different. This is because
∆𝑡 = ∆𝑡′ 𝑎𝑛𝑑 |∆𝑟| = |∆𝑟′|. To relate Bob’s measurement to Alice’s we have:

𝑟⃗ ′ = 𝑟⃗ − 𝑅⃗⃗ or

1
𝑟⃗ ′ + 𝑅⃗⃗ = 𝑟⃗0 + 𝑣⃗0 ∆𝑡 + 𝑎⃗ ∆𝑡 2
2

′
∆𝑟⃗ ′ ∆𝑟⃗ ∆𝑅⃗⃗ ∆𝑟⃗
𝑣⃗ = = − = = 𝑣⃗
∆𝑡 ∆𝑡 ∆𝑡 ∆𝑡

 Scenario 2: Two frames moving at constant velocity with respect to each

other.

If Bob’s reference frame is moving with respect to Alice’s then things are
slightly more complex. Consider Bob moving with constant velocity 𝑢
⃗⃗ with respect
to Alice.

Now we have the following,

 9

𝑟⃗ ′ = 𝑟⃗ − 𝑅⃗⃗(𝑡) or

1
𝑟⃗ ′ + 𝑅⃗⃗ (𝑡) = 𝑟⃗0 + 𝑣⃗0 ∆𝑡 + 𝑎⃗ ∆𝑡 2
2

′
∆𝑟⃗ ′ ∆𝑟⃗ ∆𝑅⃗⃗(𝑡)
𝑣⃗ = = − = 𝑣⃗ − 𝑢
⃗⃗
∆𝑡 ∆𝑡 ∆𝑡

′
∆𝑣⃗ ′ ∆𝑣⃗ ∆𝑢
⃗⃗
𝑎⃗ = = − = 𝑎⃗
∆𝑡 ∆𝑡 ∆𝑡

where 𝑢
⃗⃗ is a constant vector in time representing the relative motion of Alice and
Bob.

 Scenario 3: Two reference frames accelerating with respect to each other.

Lastly, if Bob is undergoing constant acceleration with respect to Alice then not
even the accelerations of the two objects will agree for the two observers. Newton,
and Galileo before him, thought that accelerated motion was unnatural, that the true
nature of trajectories was either to be at rest or moving with constant velocity. For
an acceleration to occur some outside entity, or force, had to be operating on the
object. (Note that Aristotle thought that only objects at rest were the ‘natural’
trajectories of objects, he thought a force was required to move an object at a
constant velocity.)

Newton’s Laws

To include interactions between objects we introduce Newton’s laws. Newton’s

three laws describe how motions are related to forces and inertia.

1) Everybody continues in its state of rest or of uniform speed in a straight line unless
acted on by a nonzero net force.
 10

2) The acceleration of an object is directly proportional to the net force acting on it

and is inversely proportional to its mass. The direction of the acceleration is in

the direction of the net force acting on the object. (𝐹⃗ = 𝑚𝑎⃗ or more precisely 𝐹
⃗⃗ =
∆(𝑚𝑣⃗ )
).
∆𝑡

3) Whenever one object exerts a force on a second object, the second object exerts
an equal and opposite force on the first.

Inertial Reference Frames (IRF)

We have seen that in considering two reference frames that are at rest with respect
to each other, or moving at a constant velocity with respect to each other, the
observed accelerations of an object will be the same. When two frames accelerate
with respect to each other, then the observed accelerations will be different. Thus, if
in one frame one measures a force 𝑭 acting upon an object with mass 𝑚 and observes
an acceleration of 𝒂 = 𝑭/𝑚, then Newton’s 2nd (and 1st ) are valid. But note that in
the frame which is accelerating with respect to the first the acceleration will not
satisfy Newton’s laws, 𝒂 ≠ 𝑭/𝑚. Forces will be the same in the two frames.
Frames for which Newton’s equations are valid are called Inertial Reference
Frames or IRFs for short. Frames for which Newton’s laws do not hold are called
non-Inertial Reference Frames. Now, we stated that for the frame, which is
accelerating with respect to the first Newton’s laws, do not hold, thus we might
conclude that any accelerating frame is a non-IRF. Generally, this is true, but when
we come to general relativity, we will see that we need to be very careful about this
relation. Keep it formal, an IRF is a frame where Newton’s laws are valid.
 11

With Newton’s laws and the kinematical equations, you can describe motions of
objects and the interactions among them. You have, no doubt, done many problems
along these lines and this will not be reviewed here. In mechanics, there are generally
two different types of forces discussed, gravity and contact forces. The gravitational
force is often introduced on the surface of the Earth as a force, which always
produces the same acceleration for objects, which are dropped. However, you know
that this is only an approximation and that Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation
𝑀 𝑀
(NUG) gives the correct form, ⃗𝑭⃗ = 𝐺 12 2 𝑹
̂ 12 .
𝑅12

As was discussed in the brief introduction to electricity and magnetism, the

contact forces discussed in elementary mechanics courses are actually due to electric
forces. Electricity and magnetism are described by Maxwell’s equations developed
in the 1860s. The other two fundamental forces of nature –the strong and weak force-
- only occur over subatomic ranges. We will not be interested in these forces and
will not discuss them further.

Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is an extremely successful theory. Most

spacecraft trajectories are calculated using the NUG to this day. However, towards
the end of the nineteenth century some small discrepancies between observations
and NUG became apparent. These we will leave off until we discuss General
Relativity.

Electromagnetic Theory and Newtonian Physics

On another front, there were some discrepancies between classical mechanics and
Maxwell’s theory. In the last decades of the nineteenth century, Maxwell’s theory
had been proved to be a highly accurate and successful description of
 12

electromagnetic phenomena. However, the physical basis of electromagnetic waves

was not well understood.

Up to that point, it had been

known that all wave phenomena
propagate through some
medium: wave on a rope, water
waves, etc. In Maxwell’s theory,
it was not entirely clear what
media the wave is propagating
through. At the time, the
accepted idea was that there was
some entity through which EM
waves propagate. The ether was
introduced as the substance through which EM waves propagated. The ether was
thought to permeate the entire universe. No one had ever observed this ether and its
physical properties were debated at length. Several experiments were performed to
attempt to measure or observe the ether. None were more famous than those
performed by A. A. Michelson and E.W. Morley, now known as the Michelson-
Morley experiment (𝑀 − 𝑀). This experiment attempted to measure the change in
the speed of light as the Earth passed through the ether at different relative velocities.
Recall that Maxwell’s equations tell us that 𝐸𝑀 waves (light) travel at 𝑐 =
3x108 𝑚/𝑠. At the time, this was taken as the speed of light propagating through
the ether. If the Earth, (along with the experiment), traveled at some speed relative
to the ether, then the observed speed of light in the laboratory would differ from c.

The M-M experiment demonstrates that, there is no ether through which light
propagates. However, there is something else. Even though there is no ether, the
 13

arms are still traveling at different speeds relative to the universe. Without the ether,
light waves were thought to propagate with respect to the universe as a whole, the
one ‘state of rest’ with which all motion is in respect to. There were several
philosophical problems with this. Maxwell’s equations state that light propagates
with 𝑐 = 299,792,458 𝑚/𝑠 (𝑜𝑟 𝑗𝑢𝑠𝑡 3x108 𝑚/𝑠), but with respect to what? In
which reference frame does this occur? This one reference frame then is surely a
very special reference frame. All other reference frames are not as special and you
can always determine how your reference frame is moving to this special one by
measuring the speed of light in your frame and then comparing with 3x108 𝑚/𝑠.
Also since 3x108 𝑚/𝑠 only occurs in this one special frame, then Maxwell’s
Equations are not valid in the others. Nowhere in Maxwell’s theory is there a
discussion of relative velocity. There seems to be a problem here. This problem
simply stems from this special speed, which is at the core of Maxwell’s Theory.
Recall that 𝑐 is defined as (𝜇0 𝜀0 )−1⁄2 and 𝜇0 and 𝜀0 are merely constants that do not
depend upon speed. There is no reference to any special speeds in mechanics. Some
tried to explain this discrepancy and one very interesting attempt was first put
forward by Fitzgerald in 1889 and then in detail by L Lorentz in 1892. In order to
explain this effect he proposed that the arm along the direction of travel respect to
𝑣2
this universal frame shrank by a factor of √1 − , where 𝑣 was the speed of the
𝑐2

experiment with relative to this special frame. This gave a phenomenological

description of the effect but there was no physical basis proposed (it also still relied
on the existence of the ether). It will be seen later that this is the correct description
of length contraction obtained by Einstein.
 14

Enter Albert Einstein

When Einstein was young, he constantly tried to figure out an answer that just
about everyone asks at one time or another. What would you observe if you traveled
at the speed of light? Let us try to see by proposing a gedankenexperiment
(A thought experiment). A superfast spaceship is developed that can travel at the
speed of light. Bob gets in and travels alongside a laser beam fired from Earth. To
see what happens let us review how electromagnetic waves propagate. In deep space
there are no charges to create electric (𝐸) or magnetic (𝐵) fields. The last two of
Maxwell's equations tells us that a time varying magnetic field will create an electric
field and a time varying electric field will create a magnetic field. At one particular
point, the 𝐸 field will be varying in a sinusoidal manner with respect to time and so
will the 𝐵 field.

It is the time variation of one field that produces the other. Now as Bob travels
alongside the laser beam, what does he observe? He observes this sinusoidal E field
in space as well as a sinusoidal 𝐵 field.

However, this is a static situation. 𝐸 & 𝐵 are constant in time. However, from
Maxwell’s equations this can’t be! There is no source whatsoever for these fields,
no electric charges and no time varying fields. There are three ways to try to amend
this:
 15

[1] If Maxwell’s Equations are valid in Bob’s frame then these fields do not exist!
Then comparing with Alice’s view there is a serious problem. Alice sees a light
wave, an entity containing energy but Bob does not! The energy of the universe in
Bob and Alice’s frame is different. How can this be!? In addition, if Bob slows down
ever so slightly then he would observe a light wave.

[2] If Maxwell’s equations are not valid in Bob’s frame, then why aren’t they?
Bob’s frame is a valid IRF just like Alice’s. It is highly unlikely that the laws of
physics would change depending upon how you move. For we said before that the
laws of mechanics are all the same in all IRFs.

[3] A third possibility is that Maxwell’s equations are valid and that he observes
a light wave travelling at c. This will require some work and tearing down of some
long held philosophical viewpoints.
 16

This third option is what Einstein chose. To allow the first possibility, first
Einstein extended the relativity principle of mechanics (that Newton’s equations are
valid in all IRFs) to all of physics (including Maxwell’s etc.).
 17

Chapter 1
 18

Constants
1.1 Relativity 21

1.2 The Relativity of Orientation and Origin 23

1.3 Events and Measurements 25

1.4 Events and Observations 26

1.5 Moving Reference Frames 27

1.6 Classical Relativity and the Speed of Light 32

1.7 Classical Doppler Effect 36

1.8 The Michelson-Morley Experiment 40

1.9 Problems 50
 19

Two great theories underlie almost all of modern physics, both of them
discovered during the first 25 years of the twentieth century. Mainly one person,
Albert Einstein, pioneered the first of these, relativity. The second, quantum theory,
was the work of many physicists, including Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg,
Schrodinger, and others. Here we describe how several of the ideas of relativity were
already present in the classical physics of Newton and others.

In Chapter 2 we describe how Einstein's careful analysis of the relationship

between different references frames, taking account of the observed invariance of
the speed of light, changed our whole concept of space and time. In addition, we
state the two postulates of Einstein's relativity and
show how they lead to a new picture of space and
time in which both lengths and time intervals
have different values when measured in two
reference frames that are moving relative to one
another.

Finally, in Chapter 3 we describe how the new

ideas about space and time required a radical'
revision of Newtonian mechanics and a
redefinition of the basic ideas — mass, momentum, energy, and force — on which
mechanics is built. In the final section of Chapter 3, we briefly describe general
relativity, which is the generalization of relativity to include gravity and accelerated
reference frames. Moreover, we show how the revised notions of space and time
require a revision of classical mechanics. We shall find that the resulting relativistic
mechanics is usually indistinguishable from Newtonian mechanics when applied to
bodies moving with normal terrestrial speeds, but is entirely different when applied
to bodies with speeds that are a substantial fraction of the speed of light, c. In
 20

particular, we shall find that nobody can be accelerated to a speed greater than c, and
that mass is a form of energy, in accordance with the famous relation 𝐸 = 𝑚𝑐 2 .

1.1 Relativity

Most physical measurements are made relative to a chosen reference system. If

we measure the time of an event as t = 5 seconds, this must mean that t is 5 seconds
relative to a chosen origin of time, t = 0. If we state that the position of a projectile
is given by a vector 𝒓 = (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧), we must mean that the position vector has
components x, y, z relative to a system of coordinates with a definite orientation and
a definite origin 𝒓 = 0. If we wish to know the kinetic energy (K.E.) of a car
speeding along a road, it makes a big difference whether we measure K.E. relative
to a reference frame fixed on the road or to one fixed on the car. (In the latter case
K.E. = 0, of course.) A little reflection should convince you that almost every
measurement requires the specification of a reference system relative to which the
measurement is to be made. We refer to this fact as the relativity of measurements.

The theory of relativity is the study of the consequences of this relativity of

measurements. It is perhaps surprising that this could be an important subject of
study. Nevertheless, Einstein showed, starting with his first paper on relativity in
1905, that a careful analysis of how measurements depend on coordinate systems
revolutionizes our whole understanding of space and time, and requires a radical
revision of classical, Newtonian mechanics.

In this chapter we discuss briefly some features of relativity as it applies in the

classical theories of Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism. We then describe
the Michelson-Morley experiment, which (with the support of numerous other, less
 21

direct experiments) shows that something is wrong with the classical ideas of space
and time.

Figure 1.1 (a) Newtonian mechanics makes correct predictions about relatively slow-moving objects; (b)
it makes incorrect predictions about the behavior of light.

Einstein's theory of relativity is really two theories. The first, called the special
theory of relativity, is "special" in that its primary focus is restricted to un-
accelerated frames of reference. This is the theory that we shall be studying and
applying to our later discussions of radiation, nuclear, and particle physics.

The second of Einstein's theories is the general theory of relativity, which is

"general" in that it includes accelerated frames of reference. Einstein found that the
study of accelerated reference frames led naturally to a theory of gravitation, and
general relativity turns out to be the relativistic theory of gravity. In practice, general
relativity is needed only in areas where its predictions differ significantly from those
of Newtonian gravitational theory. These include the study of the intense gravity
near black holes, of the large-scale universe, and of the effect, the earth's gravity has
on extremely accurate time measurements (one part in 1012 or so). General relativity
 22

is an important part of modern physics; nevertheless, it is an advanced topic and,

unlike special relativity, is not required for the other topics.

Although it is well known that relativity plays an essential role in theoretical

physics, it also has practical applications, for example, in the design of particle
accelerators, global positioning system (GPS) units, and high-voltage TV displays.
Note that these devices simply will not work if designed according to Newtonian
mechanics!

1.2 The Relativity of Orientation and Origin

In your studies of classical physics, you probably did not pay much attention to
the relativity of measurements. Nevertheless, the ideas were present and, whether or
not you were aware of it, you probably exploited some aspects of relativity theory
in solving certain problems. Let us illustrate this claim with two examples.

In problems involving blocks sliding on inclined planes, it is well known that one
can choose coordinates in various ways. One could, for example, use a coordinate
system 𝑆 with origin O at the bottom of the slope and with axes 𝑂𝑥 horizontal,
𝑂𝑦 vertical, and 𝑂𝑧 across the slope, as shown in Fig. 1.2(a). Another possibility
would be a reference frame S' with origin 𝑂′ at the top of the slope and axes 𝑂′𝑥′
parallel to the slope, 𝑂′𝑦′ perpendicular to the slope, and 𝑂′𝑧′ across it, as shown in
Fig. 1.2(b). The solution of any problem relative to the frame S may look quite
different from the solution relative to 𝑆′, and it often happens that one choice of axes
is much more convenient than the other. On the other hand, the basic laws of motion,
Newton's laws, make no reference to the choice of origin and orientation of axes,
and are equally true in either coordinate system. In the language of relativity theory,
we can say that Newton's laws are invariant, or unchanged, as we shift our attention
 23

from frame S to 𝑆′, or vice versa. It is because the laws of motion are the same in
either coordinate system that we are free to use whichever system is more
convenient.

Figure 1.2 (a) In studying a block on an incline, one could choose axes 𝑶𝒙 horizontal and 𝑶𝒚 vertical
and put 𝑶 at the bottom of the slope. (b) Another possibility, which is often more convenient, is to use an
axis 𝑶′𝒙′ parallel to the slope with 𝑶′𝒚′ perpendicular to the slope, and to put 𝑶′ at the top of the slope.
(The axes 𝑶𝒛 and 𝑶′𝒛′ point out of the page and are not shown.)

Figure 1.3 Measuring

the velocity of an
object by appealing to
the basic definition
𝒖 = ∆𝒙⁄∆𝒕.

The invariance of the basic laws when we change the origin or orientation of
axes is true in all of classical physics — Newtonian mechanics, electromagnetism,
and thermodynamics. It is also true in Einstein's theory of relativity. It means that in
any problem in physics, one is free to choose the origin of coordinates and the
orientation of axes in whatever way is most convenient. This freedom is very useful
 24

and we often exploit it. However, it is not especially interesting in our study of
relativity, and we shall not have much occasion to discuss it further.

1.3 Events and Measurements

To question some of our most basic assumptions about space and time requires
extreme care. We need to be certain that no assumptions slip into our analysis
unnoticed. Our goal is to describe the motion of a particle in a clear and precise way,
making the barest minimum of assumptions.

1.3.1 Events

The fundamental entity of relativity is called an event. An event is a physical activity

that takes place at a definite point in space and at a definite instant of time. A
firecracker exploding is an event. A collision between two particles is an event. A
light wave hitting a detector is an event.

Events can be observed and measured by experimenters in different reference

frames. An exploding firecracker is as clear to you as you drive by in your car as it
is to me standing on the street corner. We can quantify where and when an event
occurs with four numbers: the coordinates (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) and the instant of time 𝑡. These
four numbers are called the space-time coordinates of the event.

The spatial coordinates of an event, measured in reference frames 𝑆 and 𝑆′ may

differ. However, it now appears that the instant of time recorded in Sand S' may also
differ. Thus the space-time coordinates of an event measured by experimenters in
frame 𝑆 are (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧, 𝑡) , and the space-time coordinates of the same event measured
by experimenters in frame 𝑆′ are (𝑥′ , 𝑦′, 𝑧′, 𝑡′).
 25

1.3.2 Measurements

Events are what "really happen," but how do we learn about an event? That is, how
do the experimenters in a reference frame determine the space-time coordinates of
an event? This is a problem of measurement.

1.4 Events and Observations

We noted above that 𝑡 is the time the event actually happens. This is an important
point, one that bears further discussion. Light waves take time to travel. Messages,
whether light pulses, telephone, or courier on horseback transmits them, take time
to be delivered. An experimenter observes an event, such as an exploding
firecracker, only at a later time when light waves reach his or her eyes. However,
our interest is in the event itself, not the experimenter's observation of the event. The
time at which the experimenter sees the event or receives information about the event
is not when the event actually occurred.

Suppose at 𝑡 = 0 s a firecracker explodes at 𝑥 = 300 𝑚. The flash of light

from the firecracker will reach an experimenter at the origin at 𝑡1 = 1 𝜇𝑠. The
sound of the explosion will reach the experimenter at 𝑡 2 = 0.88 𝑠. Neither of these
is the time 𝑡event of the explosion, although the experimenter can work backward from
these times, using known wave speeds, to determine 𝑡event. In this example, the space-
time coordinates of the event-the explosion-are (300 𝑚, 0 𝑚, 0 𝑚, 0 𝑠).
 26

Figure 1.4 synchronizing the clocks.

1.5 Moving Reference Frames

As a more important example of relativity, we consider next a question involving

two reference frames that are moving relative to one another. Our discussion will
raise some interesting questions about classical physics, questions that were
satisfactorily answered only when Einstein showed that the classical ideas about the
relation between moving reference frames needed revision.

Let us imagine a student standing still in a car that is moving with constant
velocity 𝑣 along a horizontal track. If the student drops a ball, where will the ball hit
the floor of the car? One way to answer this question is to use a reference frame S
fixed on the track, as shown in Fig. 1.5(a). In this coordinate system, the car and
student move with constant velocity 𝑣 to the right. At the moment of release, the ball
is traveling with velocity 𝑣 and it moves, under the influence of gravity, in the
parabola shown. It therefore lands to the right of its starting point (as measured in
the ground-based frame S). However, while the ball is falling the car is moving, and
 27

a straightforward calculation shows that the car moves exactly as far to the right as
does the ball. Thus the ball hits the floor at the student's feet, vertically below his
hand.

Figure 1.5 the

observer in the
truck sees the
ball move in a
vertical path
when thrown
upward. (b) The
Earth observer
views the path of
the ball as a
parabola.

Simple as this solution is, one can reach the same conclusion even more simply
by using a reference frame 𝑆′ fixed to the train, as shown in Fig. 1.5(b). In this
coordinate system the train and student are at rest (while the track moves to the left
with constant velocity −𝑣). At the moment of release the ball is at rest (as measured
in the truck-based frame 𝑆′). It therefore falls straight down and naturally hits the
floor vertically below the point of release.

The justification of this second, simpler argument is actually quite subtle. We

have taken for granted that an observer on the car (using the coordinates 𝑥′, 𝑦′, 𝑧′) is
entitled to use Newton's laws of motion and hence to predict that a ball which is
dropped from rest will fall straight down. However, is this correct? The question we
must answer is this: If we accept as an experimental fact that Newton's laws of
motion hold for an observer on the ground (using coordinates 𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧), does it follow
 28

that Newton's laws also hold for an observer in the truck (using 𝑥′, 𝑦′, 𝑧′)?
Equivalently, are Newton's laws invariant as we pass from the ground-based frame
S to the truck-based frame 𝑆′? Within the framework of classical physics, the answer
to this question is "yes," as we now show.

Since Newton's laws refer to velocities and accelerations, let us first consider the
velocity of the ball. We let 𝑢 denote the ball's velocity relative to the ground-based
frame S and u' the ball's velocity relative to the truck-based S'. Since the truck moves
with constant velocity 𝒗 relative to the ground, we naturally expect that

𝒖 = 𝒖′ + 𝒗 (1.1)

We shall refer to this equation as the classical velocity-addition formula. It

reflects our common sense ideas about space and time, and asserts that velocities
obey ordinary vector addition. Although it is one of the central assumptions of
classical physics, equation (1.1) is one of the first victims of Einstein's relativity. In
Einstein's relativity the velocities 𝒖 and 𝒖′ do not satisfy (1.1), which is only an
approximation (although a very good approximation) that is valid when all speeds
are much less than the speed of light, 𝑐. Nevertheless, we are for the moment
discussing classical physics, and we therefore assume for now that the classical
velocity-addition formula is correct.

Now let us examine Newton's three laws, starting with the first: A body on which
no external forces act moves with constant velocity. Let us assume that this law holds
in the ground-based frame S. This means that if our ball is isolated from all outside
forces, its velocity u is constant. But 𝒖′ = 𝒖 − 𝒗 and the truck's velocity 𝒗 is
constant. It follows at once that 𝒖′ is also constant, and Newton's first law also holds
in the truck-based frame 𝑆′. We shall find that this result is also valid in Einstein's
 29

relativity; that is, in both classical physics and Einstein's relativity, Newton's first
law is invariant as we pass between two frames whose relative velocity is constant.

Newton's second law is a little more complicated. If we assume that it holds in

the ground-based frame S, it tells us that

𝑭 = 𝑚𝒂

where 𝑭 is the sum of the forces on the ball, 𝑚 its mass, and 𝒂 its acceleration, all
measured in the frame S. We now use this assumption to show that 𝑭′ = 𝑚′𝒂′, where
𝑭′, 𝑚′, 𝒂′ are the corresponding quantities measured relative to the truck-based
frame S'. We shall do this by arguing that each of ′, 𝑚′, 𝒂′ is in fact equal to the
corresponding quantity 𝑭, 𝑚, and 𝒂.

The proof that 𝑭 = 𝑭′ depends, to some extent, on how one has chosen to define
force. Perhaps the simplest procedure is to define forces by their effect on a standard
calibrated spring balance. Since observers in the two frames 𝑆 and 𝑆′ will certainly
agree on the reading of the balance, it follows that any force will have the same value
as measured in S and S'; that is, 𝑭 = 𝑭′.*

Within the domain of classical physics it is an experimental fact that any

technique for measuring mass (for example, an inertial balance) will produce the
same result in either reference frame; that is, 𝑚 = 𝑚′.

Finally, we must look at the acceleration. The acceleration measured in 𝑆 ′ is

𝑑 𝒖′
𝒂′ = (1.2)
𝑑 𝑡′

*
Of course, the same result holds whatever our definition of force, but with some definitions the proof is a little
more roundabout. For example, many texts define force by the equation 𝑭 = 𝑚𝒂. Superficially, at least, this means
that Newton's second law is true by definition in both frames. Then since 𝑚 = 𝑚′ and 𝑎′ = 𝑎 (as we shall show
shortly) it follows that 𝑭 = 𝑭′.
 30

where 𝑡′ is the time measured by observers on the truck. Now, it is a central

assumption of classical physics that time is a single universal quantity, the same for
all observers; that is, the times 𝑡 and 𝑡′ are the same, or 𝑡 = 𝑡′. Therefore, we can
replace (1.2) by

𝑑 𝒖′
𝒂′ = Since 𝒖′ = 𝒖 − 𝒗
𝑑𝑡

we can simply differentiate with respect to t and find that

𝑑𝒗
𝒂′ = 𝒂 − (1.3)
𝑑𝑡

or, since 𝑣 is constant, 𝒂′ = 𝒂.

We have now argued that 𝑭′ = 𝑭, 𝑚′ = 𝑚, and 𝒂′ = 𝒂. Substituting into the

equation 𝑭 = 𝑚𝒂, we immediately find that

𝑭′ = 𝑚′𝒂′

That is, Newton's second law is also true for observers using the truck-based
coordinate frame S'.

The third law, 𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆 = – (𝒓𝒆𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆), is easily treated. Since
any given force has the same value as measured in 𝑆 or 𝑆′, the truth of Newton's third
law in 𝑆 immediately implies its truth in 𝑆′.

We have now established that if Newton's laws are valid in one reference frame,
they are also valid in any second frame that moves with constant velocity relative to
the first. This shows why we could use the normal rules of projectile motion in a
coordinate system fixed to the moving train. More generally, in the context of our
newfound interest in relativity, it establishes an important property of Newton's
laws: If space and time have the usual properties assumed in classical physics, then
 31

Newton's laws are invariant as we transfer our attention from one coordinate frame
to a second one moving with constant velocity relative to the first.

Newton's laws would not still hold in a coordinate system that was accelerating.
Physically, this is easy to understand. If our truck were accelerating forward, then
just to keep the ball at rest (relative to the train) would require a force; that is,
Newton's first law does not hold in the accelerating truck. To see the same thing
mathematically, note that if 𝒖′ = 𝒖 − 𝒗 and 𝒗 is changing, then 𝒖′ is not constant
even if 𝒖 is. Further, the acceleration 𝒂′ as given by (1.3) is not equal to 𝒂, since
𝑑𝒗⁄ is not zero; so our proof of the second law for the truck's frame S' also breaks
𝑑𝑡
down. In classical physics, the un-accelerated frames in which Newton's laws hold
are often called inertial frames, and an accelerated frame is then non-inertial.

1.6 Classical Relativity and the Speed of Light

Although Newton's laws are invariant as we change from one un-accelerated

frame to another (if we accept the classical view of space and time), the same is not
true of the laws of electromagnetism. We can show this by separately examining
each law, Gauss's law, Faraday's law, and so on, but the required calculations are
complicated.
 32

Figure 1.6 A thought experiment in simultaneity.

 33

A simpler procedure is to recall that the laws of electromagnetism imply that, in a

vacuum, light signals and all other electromagnetic waves travel in any direction
with speed*

1
𝑐= = 3.00𝑥108 𝑚/𝑠
√𝜀𝑜 𝜇𝑜

where 𝜀𝑜 and 𝜇𝑜 are the permittivity and permeability of the vacuum. Thus if the
electromagnetic laws hold in a frame 𝑆, light must travel with the same speed 𝑐 in
all directions, as seen in 𝑆.

Let us now consider a second frame 𝑆′ traveling relative to S and imagine a pulse
of light moving in the same direction as 𝑆′. The pulse has speed 𝑐 relative to 𝑆.
Therefore, by the classical velocity-addition formula, it should have speed 𝑐 - 𝑣 as
seen from 𝑆′. Similarly, a pulse traveling in the opposite direction would have speed
𝑐 + 𝑣 as seen from 𝑆′, and a pulse traveling in any other, oblique direction would
have a different speed, intermediate between 𝑐 - 𝑣 and 𝑐 + 𝑣. We see that in the
frame 𝑆′ the speed of light should vary between 𝑐 - 𝑣 and 𝑐 + 𝑣 according to its
direction of propagation. Therefore, in classical physics, the laws of
electromagnetism, unlike those of mechanics, could not be valid in the frame 𝑆′.

The situation just described was well understood by physicists toward the end of
the nineteenth century. In particular, it was accepted as entirely obvious that there
could be only one frame, called the ether frame, in which light traveled at the same
speed, c, in all directions. The name "ether frame" derived from the belief that light

*
More precisely, c = 299,792,458 m/s. In fact, the determination of c has become so accurate that, since 1984,
the meter has been defined in terms of c, as the fraction 1/299,792,458 of the distance traveled by light in 1
second. This means that, by definition, c is 299,792,458 m/s exactly.
 34

waves must propagate through a medium, in much the same way that sound waves
were known to propagate in the air.

Figure 1.7 If the velocity of the ether wind relative to the Earth is 𝒗, and 𝒄 is the velocity of light relative
to the ether, the speed of light relative to the Earth is (a) 𝒄 + 𝒗 in the downwind direction, (b) 𝒄 − 𝒗 in
the upwind direction, and (c) (𝒄𝟐 − 𝒗𝟐 )𝟏/𝟐 in the direction perpendicular to the wind.

Since light propagates through a vacuum, physicists recognized that this

medium, which no one had ever seen or felt, must have unusual properties.
Borrowing the ancient name for the substance of the heavens, they called it the
"ether." The unique reference frame in which light traveled at speed c was assumed
to be the frame in which the ether was at rest. As we shall see, Einstein's relativity
implies that neither the ether, nor the ether frame, actually exists.
 35

EXAMPLE 1.1 A flashbulb is located 30 Km from an observer. The bulb is fired

and the observer sees the flash a 1:00 PM. What is the actual time that the bulb is
fired?

Solution

The time for the light signal to travel 30 Km is

∆𝑠 30𝑥103
∆𝑡 = = 8
= 1𝑥10−4 𝑠
𝑐 3𝑥10

Therefore, the flashbulb was fired 1x10-4 s before 1:00 PM.

1.7 Classical Doppler Effect

It is of interest to know how the frequency of sound waves transforms between

inertial reference frames. Sound waves are recognized as longitudinal waves and,
unlike transverse light waves, they require a material medium for their propagation.
In fact, the speed of sound waves depends strongly on the physical properties (i.e.,
temperature, mass density, etc.) of the material medium through which they
propagate. Assuming a uniform material medium, the speed of sound, or the speed
at which the waves propagate through a stationary material medium, is constant. The
basic relation

𝜈𝑆 = 𝜆𝑓 (1.4)

requires that the product of the wavelength 𝜆 and frequency 𝑓 of the waves be equal
to their uniform speed 𝜈𝑆 of propagation. Classical physics requires that the relation
expressed by Equation 1.4 is true for all observers who are at rest with respect to the
transmitting material medium. That is, once sound waves have been produced by a
vibrating source, which can either be at rest or moving with respect to the
 36

propagating medium, the speed of sound measured by different spatial observers

will be identical, provided they are all stationary with respect to and in the same
uniform material medium. Certainly, the measured values of frequency and
wavelength in a system that is stationary with respect to the transmitting medium
need not be the same as the measured values of frequency and wavelength in a
moving system.

In this section the unprimed variable (e.g., 𝑥, 𝑡, 𝜆, etc.) are associated with an
observer in the receiver 𝑅 system while the primed variables (e.g., 𝑥 ′ , 𝑡 ′ , etc.) are
associated with the source of sound or emitter 𝐸 ′ system. In all cases the transmitting
material medium, assumed to be air, is considered to be stationary, whereas the
emitter 𝐸 ′ and receiver R may be either stationary or moving, relative to the
transmitting medium. For the situation where the receiver 𝑅 is stationary with
respect to air, and the emitter 𝐸 ′ is receding or approaching the receiver, the speed
of sound 𝜈𝑆 as perceived by 𝑅 is given by Equation 1.4.

To deduce the classical frequency transformation, consider the emitter 𝐸 ′ of sound

waves to be positioned at the origin of coordinates of the 𝑆 ′ reference frame.

Figure 1.8 An emitter 𝑬′ of sound

waves receding from a detector 𝑹,
which is stationary with respect to
air. 𝑬′ is activated at time 𝒕′𝟏 and
deactivated at time 𝒕′𝟐 , when 𝑹
receives the first wave pulse.
 37

Let the sound waves be emitted in the direction of the receiver 𝑅, which is
located at the origin of coordinates of the unprimed system and is stationary with
respect to air. This situation, depicted in Figure 1.8, corresponds to the case where
the emitter and detector recede from each other with a uniform speed 𝑢. In figure,
1.8 arcs depict the wave pulses of the emitted sounds. It should be noted that the first
wave pulse received at 𝑅 occurs at a time ∆𝑡 after the emitter 𝐸 ′ was activated
(indicated by the dashed 𝑌 ′ -axis in the figure). The emitter 𝐸 ′ can be thought of as
being activated by pulse of light from 𝑅 at a time 𝑡1 = 𝑡1′ . A continuous emission of
sound waves traveling at approximately 330 m/s is assumed until the first sound
wave is perceived by 𝑅 at time 𝑡2 = 𝑡2′ . As illustrated in Figure 1.8, 𝐸 ′ has moved
through the distance 𝑢∆𝑡 during the time 𝑡2 − 𝑡1 required for the first sound wave to
travel the distance 𝜈𝑆 (𝑡2 − 𝑡1 ) to 𝑅. When 𝑅 detects the first sound wave, it transmits
a light pulse traveling at a constant speed of essentially 3x108 m/s to 𝐸 ′ , thereby
stopping the emission of sound waves almost instantaneously. Consequently, the
number of wave pulses 𝑁 ′ emitted by 𝐸 ′ in the time interval ∆𝑡 ′ = ∆𝑡 is exactly the
number of wave pulses 𝑁 that will be perceived eventually by 𝑅. With 𝑥 being
defined as the distance between 𝑅 and 𝐸 ′ at that instant in time when 𝑅 detects the
very first sound wave emitted by 𝐸 ′ , we have
𝑥
𝜆=
𝑁

where 𝜆 is the wavelength of the sound waves according to an observer in the

receiving system. Solving Equation 1.4 for 𝑓 and substituting from the last equation
gives

𝑣𝑆 𝑁
𝑓=
𝑥

for the frequency of sound waves as observed in system R. From figure 1.4
 38

𝑥 = (𝑣𝑆 + 𝑢)∆𝑡

𝑣𝑆 𝑁
𝑓=
(𝑣𝑆 + 𝑢)∆𝑡
𝑢
Let 𝜅 ≡ , and since
𝑣𝑆

𝑁 = 𝑁 ′ = 𝑓 ′ ∆𝑡 ′

Therefore, we obtain the relation

𝑓′
𝑓=
1+𝜅

𝐸 ′ receding from 𝑅, where the identity ∆𝑡 = ∆𝑡 ′ has been utilized. Since the
denominator of the equation is always greater than one (i.e., 1 + 𝜅 > 1), the detected
frequency 𝑓 is always lower than the emitted or proper frequency 𝑓 ′ (i.e., 𝑓 < 𝑓 ′ ).
With musical pitch being related to frequency, in a subjective sense, then this
phenomenon could be referred to as a downshift. To appreciate the rationale of this
reference terminology, realize that as a train recedes from you the pitch of its emitted
sound is noticeably lower than when it was approaching. Therefore
𝑣𝑆
𝜆= ′
(1 + 𝜅) ≡ 𝜆′ (1 + 𝜅)
𝑓

Since 1 + 𝜅 > 1, 𝜆 > 𝜆′ and there is a shift to larger wavelengths when an emitter
𝐸 ′ of sound waves recedes from an observer 𝑅 who is stationary with respect to air.

The Doppler Effect for sound is described by the general equation

(𝑣 ± 𝑣𝑜 )
𝑓𝑜 = 𝑓 ′
(𝑣 ∓ 𝑢 )

𝑓𝑜 observed (detected) frequency

 39

𝑣𝑜 observer’s speed relative to the medium

𝑓′ frequency of oscillations of the source signal

𝑢 velocity of source relative to the medium

𝑣 speed of sound in the medium

EXAMPLE 1.2 A train whistle is blown by the driver who hears the sound at
650 Hz. If the train is heading towards a station at 20.0 m.s-1, what will the whistle
sound like to a waiting commuter? Take the speed of sound to be 340 m.s-1.

Solution

𝑓 ′ = 650 Hz 𝑢 = 20 m.s-1 𝑣𝑜 = 0 m.s-1 v = 340 m.s-1

𝑓𝑜 = ? Hz (must be higher since train approaches observer).

(𝑣 ± 𝑣𝑜 ) 𝑣 340
𝑓𝑜 = 𝑓 ′ = 𝑓′ = (340) ( ) = 691 𝐻𝑧
(𝑣 ∓ 𝑢 ) (𝑣 − 𝑢 ) 340 − 20

EXAMPLE 1.3 An ambulance travels down a straight section of highway at a speed

of 100 km.h-1, its siren emitting sound at a frequency of 400 Hz. What frequency
does a passenger in a car travelling on the same highway at a speed of 80 km.h-1
Consider all possibilities hear. Speed of sound in air is 345 m.s-1.

Solution
(𝑣 ± 𝑣𝑜 )
𝑓𝑜 = 𝑓 ′
(𝑣 ∓ 𝑢 )
𝑓 ′ = 400 Hz 𝑢 = 100 km.h-1= 27.78 m.s-1 𝑣𝑜 = 80 km.h-1 = 22.22 m.s-1

v = 345 m.s-1 𝑓𝑜 =?
 40

Case 1

(𝑣 ± 𝑣𝑜 ) 345 − 22.22
𝑓𝑜 = 𝑓 ′ = (400) ( ) = 407 𝐻𝑧
(𝑣 ∓ 𝑢 ) 345 − 27.78

Case 2

(𝑣 ± 𝑣𝑜 ) 345 + 22.22
𝑓𝑜 = 𝑓 ′ = (400) ( ) = 394 𝐻𝑧
(𝑣 ∓ 𝑢 ) 345 + 27.78

Case 3

(𝑣 ± 𝑣𝑜 ) 345 + 22.22
𝑓𝑜 = 𝑓 ′ = (400) ( ) = 463 𝐻𝑧
(𝑣 ∓ 𝑢 ) 345 − 27.78

Case 4

(𝑣 ± 𝑣𝑜 ) 345 − 22.22
𝑓𝑜 = 𝑓 ′ = (400) ( ) = 346 𝐻𝑧
(𝑣 ∓ 𝑢 ) 345 + 27.78

1.8 The Michelson-Morley Experiment

American physicist performed the famous experiment, designed to detect small

changes in the speed of light, with motion of an observer through the ether in 1887,:
Albert A. Michelson (1852–1931), and the American chemist Edward W. Morley
(1838–1923). We should state at the outset that the outcome of the experiment was
negative, thus contradicting the ether hypothesis. The highly accurate experimental
tool perfected by these pioneers to measure small changes in light speed was the
 41

Michelson interferometer, shown in Figure 1.9. One of the arms of the interferometer
was aligned along the direction of the motion of the Earth through the ether. The
Earth moving through the ether would be equivalent to the ether flowing past the
Earth in the opposite direction with speed 𝑣, as shown in Figure 1.9. This ether wind
blowing in the opposite direction should cause the speed of light measured in the
Earth’s frame of reference to be 𝑐 − 𝑣 as it approaches the mirror M2 in Figure 1.9
and 𝑐 + 𝑣 after reflection. The speed 𝑣 is the speed of the Earth through space, and
hence the speed of the ether wind, and 𝑐 is the speed of light in the ether frame. The
two beams of light reflected from M1 and M2 would recombine, and an interference
pattern consisting of alternating dark and bright bands, or fringes, would be formed.

During the experiment, the interference pattern was observed while the
interferometer was rotated through an angle of 90°. This rotation would change the
speed of the ether wind along the direction of the arms of the interferometer. The
effect of this rotation should have been to cause the fringe pattern to shift slightly
but measurably. Measurements failed to show any change in the interference pattern!
The Michelson–Morley experiment was repeated by other researchers under various
conditions, and at different times of the year when the ether wind was expected to
have changed direction and magnitude, but the results were always the same: No
fringe shift of the magnitude required was ever observed.

The negative results of the Michelson–Morley experiment not only meant that
the speed of light does not depend on the direction of light propagation but also
contradicted the ether hypothesis. The negative results also meant that it was
impossible to measure the absolute velocity of the Earth with respect to the ether
frame. As we shall see in the next section, Einstein’s postulates compactly explain
these and a host of other perplexing questions, relegating the idea of the ether to the
ash heap of history. Light is now understood to be a phenomenon that requires no
 42

medium for its propagation. As a result, the idea of an ether in which these waves
could travel became unnecessary.

Figure 1.9 Diagram of the Michelson

interferometer. According to the ether wind
concept, the speed of light should be 𝒄 − 𝒗 as
the beam approaches mirror M2 and 𝒄 + 𝒗
after reflection.

Michelson’s model in Potsdam Michelson Building B

 43

To understand the outcome of the Michelson–Morley experiment, let us assume

that the interferometer shown in Figure 1.9 has two arms of equal length L. First
consider the beam traveling parallel to the direction of the ether wind, which is taken
to be horizontal in Figure 1.9. According to Newtonian mechanics, as the beam
moves to the right, its speed is reduced by the wind and its speed with respect to the
Earth is 𝒄 − 𝒗. On its return journey, as the light beam moves to the left downwind,
its speed with respect to the Earth is 𝒄 + 𝒗. Thus, the time of travel to the right is
𝐿/( 𝒄 + 𝒗), and the time of travel to the left is 𝐿/( 𝒄 − 𝒗). The total time of travel
for the round-trip along the horizontal path is
−1
𝐿 𝐿 2𝐿𝑐 2𝐿 𝒗𝟐
𝑡1 = + = = (1 − 𝟐 )
( 𝒄 + 𝒗) ( 𝒄 − 𝒗) 𝒄𝟐 − 𝒗𝟐 𝑐 𝒄

Now consider the light beam traveling perpendicular to the wind, as shown in
Figure 1.9. Because the speed of the beam relative to the Earth is (𝒄𝟐 − 𝒗𝟐 )𝟏/𝟐 in
𝐿
this case (see Fig. 1.7c), the time of travel for each half of this trip is (𝒄𝟐
, and
− 𝒗𝟐 )𝟏/𝟐

the total time of travel for the round-trip is

−1/2
2𝐿 2𝐿 𝒗𝟐
𝑡2 = 𝟐 = (1 − 𝟐 )
(𝒄 − 𝒗𝟐 )𝟏/𝟐 𝑐 𝒄

Thus, the time difference between the light beam traveling horizontally and the
beam traveling vertically is

−1 −1/2
2𝐿 𝒗𝟐 𝒗𝟐
∆𝑡 = 𝑡1 − 𝑡2 = [(1 − 𝟐 ) − (1 − 𝟐 ) ]
𝑐 𝒄 𝒄

𝒗𝟐
Because ≪ 1, this expression can be simplified by using the following binomial
𝒄𝟐

expansion after dropping all terms higher than second order:

 44

(1 − 𝑥 )𝑛 ≈ 1 − 𝑛𝑥 (𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑥 ≪ 1)

we find

2𝐿 𝒗𝟐 𝒗𝟐
∆𝑡 = 𝑡1 − 𝑡2 = [(1 + 𝟐 ) − (1 + 𝟐 )]
𝑐 𝒄 𝟐𝒄

𝐿 𝒗𝟐
∆𝑡 = 𝑡1 − 𝑡2 = (1.5)
𝑐3

The two light beams start out in phase and return to form an interference pattern.
Let us assume that the interferometer is adjusted for parallel fringes and that a
telescope is focused on one of these fringes. The time difference between the two
light beams gives rise to a phase difference between the beams, producing the
interference fringe pattern when they combine at the position of the telescope. A
difference in the pattern (Fig. 1.10) should be detected by rotating the interferometer
through 90𝑜 in a horizontal plane, such that the two beams exchange roles. This
results in a net time difference of twice that given by Equation 1.5. The path
difference corresponding to this time difference is

2𝐿 𝑣 2
∆𝑑 = 𝑐(2∆𝑡) =
𝑐2
 45

Figure 1.10 Interference fringe schematic showing (a) fringes before rotation and (b) expected fringe
shift after a rotation of the interferometer by 𝟗𝟎𝒐 .

The corresponding fringe shift is equal to this path difference divided by the
wavelength of light, 𝜆, because a change in path of 1 wavelength corresponds to a
shift of 1 fringe.

2𝐿 𝑣 2
𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡 = ∆𝑁 = (1.6)
𝜆𝑐 2

In the experiments by Michelson and Morley, each light beam was reflected by
mirrors many times to give an increased effective path length 𝐿 of about 11 m. Using
this value, and taking 𝑣 to be equal to 3 x 104 m/s, the speed of the Earth about the
Sun, gives a path difference of

2𝐿 𝑣 2 2(11 𝑚)(3𝑥104 𝑚/𝑠)

∆𝑑 = 2 = 8 2
= 2.2𝑥10−7 𝑚
𝑐 ( 3𝑥10 𝑚/𝑠 )

This extra distance of travel should produce a noticeable shift in the fringe
pattern. Specifically, using light of wavelength 500 nm, we find a fringe shift for
rotation through 90𝑜 of

∆𝑑 2.2𝑥10−7 𝑚
𝑠ℎ𝑖𝑓𝑡 = ∆𝑁 = = ≅ 0.4
𝜆 5.0𝑥10−7 𝑚

The precision instrument designed by Michelson and Morley had the capability
of detecting a shift in the fringe pattern as small as 0.01 fringe. However, the
Michelson-Morley experiment has been repeated many times at different times of
year, and with ever-increasing precision, but always with the same result: There is
no shift in the interference when the interferometer is rotated*. With hindsight it is

*
From time to time experimenters have reported observing nonzero shifts, but closer examination has
shown that these are probably due to spurious effects such as expansion and contraction of the interferometer
 46

easy to draw the right conclusion from their experiment: Contrary to all our
expectations, light always travels with the same speed in all directions relative to an
earth-based reference frame, even though the earth has different velocities at
different times of year. In other words, there is no unique ether frame, in which light
has the same speed, in all directions.

This conclusion is so surprising that it was not taken seriously for nearly 20 years.
Rather, several ingenious alternative theories were advanced that explained the
Michelson - Morley result but managed to preserve the notion of an ether. For
example, in the "ether-drag" theory, it was suggested that, the earth dragged along
the ether, the medium through which light was supposed to propagate, as it moved
through space (in much the same way that the earth does drag its atmosphere with
it). If this were the case, an earth-bound observer would automatically be at rest
relative to the ether, and Michelson and Morley would naturally have found that light
had the same speed in all directions at all times of year. Unfortunately, this neat
explanation of the Michelson-Morley result requires that light from the stars would
be bent as it entered the earth's envelope of ether. Instead, astronomical observations
show that light from any star continues to move in a straight line as it arrives at the
earth.*

Many efforts were made to explain the null results of the Michelson–Morley
experiment and to save the ether concept and the Galilean addition law for the
velocity of light. Because all these proposals have been shown to be wrong, we
consider them no further here and turn instead to an auspicious proposal made by

arms resulting from temperature variations. For a careful modern n analysis of Michelson and Morley's results
and many further references, see M. Handschy, American Journal of Physics, vol. 50, p. 987 (1982).

*
Because of the earth's motion around the sun, the apparent direction of any one star undergoes a slight
annual variation – an effect called stellar aberration. This effect is consistent with the claim that light travels
in a straight line from the star to the earth's surface, but contradicts the ether drag theory.
 47

George F. Fitzgerald and Hendrik A. Lorentz. In the 1890s, Fitzgerald and Lorentz
tried to explain the null results by making the following ad hoc assumption. They
proposed that the length of an object moving at speed 𝑣 would contract along the
2
direction of travel by a factor of √(1 − 𝑣 ⁄𝑐 2 ). The net result of this contraction

would be a change in length of one of the arms of the interferometer such that no
path difference would occur as the interferometer was rotated.

The ether-drag theory, like all other alternative explanations of the Michelson-
Morley result, has been abandoned because it fails to fit all the facts. Today, nearly
all physicists agree that Michelson and Morley's failure to detect our motion relative
to the ether frame was because there is no ether frame. The first person to accept this
surprising conclusion and to develop its consequences into a complete theory was
Einstein.

EXAMPLE 1.4 In a lab frame of reference, an observer finds Newton’s second law
is valid in the form ∑𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑝ℎ𝑦𝑠𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑠 𝐹 = 𝑚𝑎 . Show that Newton’s second law
is not valid in a reference frame moving past the laboratory frame with a constant
acceleration 𝑎1 . Assume that mass is an invariant quantity and is constant in time.

Solution
The force equation 𝐹𝐴 = 𝑚𝑎𝐴 in the stationary reference system, and 𝑣𝐵 = 𝑣𝐴 +
𝑣𝐵𝐴 where the subscript 𝐴, indicates that the measurement is made in laboratory
frame, 𝐵 the moving frame, and 𝑣𝐵𝐴 is the velocity of 𝐵 with respect to 𝐴. It is given
𝑑𝑣𝐵𝐴
that 𝑎1 = . Therefore from differentiating the velocity equation, we have 𝑎𝐵 =
𝑑𝑡

𝑎𝐴 + 𝑎1 . Assuming mass is invariant, and the forces are invariant as well, the
Newton’s law in frame 𝐵 should be
 48

∑ 𝐹 = 𝑚𝑎𝐴 = 𝑚𝑎𝐵 − 𝑚𝑎1

Which is not simply 𝑚𝑎𝐵 . So Newton’s second law ∑ 𝐹 = 𝑚𝑎𝐵 is invalid in frame
B. However, we can rewrite it as

∑ 𝐹 + 𝑚𝑎1 = 𝑚𝑎𝐵
Which compares to ∑ 𝐹 + 𝑚𝑔 = 𝑚𝑎𝐵 . It is there were a universal gravitational field
𝑔 acting on everything. This is the basic idea of the equivalence principle (general
relativity) where an accelerated reference frame is equivalent to a reverence frame
with universal gravitation field.

EXAMPLE 1.5 The figure

diagrams a Michelson-
Morley interferometer
oriented with one 𝑙𝐴 parallel
to the “ether wind”. Show
that if the apparatus is rotated
through 90𝑜 , the number of
fringes ∆𝑁, that move past
the telescope crosshairs is, to first order in (𝑣 ⁄𝑐 )2

𝑣2
∆𝑁 = 2 (𝑙𝐴 + 𝑙𝐵 )
𝜆𝑐
Solution
For arm 𝐴, the time for light to travel to mirror 𝐴 is obtaind by dividing the path
length 𝑙𝐴 by the velocity of light, which from the Galilean velocity transformations
is 𝑐 − 𝑣. On return the path is still 𝑙𝐴 , but now the velocity is 𝑐 + 𝑣, so the total time
for the round trip is
 49

𝑙𝐴 𝑙𝐴 2𝑙𝐴 ⁄𝑐
𝑡𝐴 = + =
𝑐 − 𝑣 𝑐 + 𝑣 1 − 𝑣 2 ⁄𝑐 2
To travel along the other arm a light ray must be aimed such that its resultant velocity
vector (velocity w.r.t. the ether plus velocity of the ether w.r.t. the interferometer) is
perpendicular to arm 𝐴. This gives a speed of √𝑐 2 − 𝑣 2 for both directions along
path 𝑙𝐵 , so the time for the round trip is

2𝑙𝐵 2𝑙𝐵 ⁄𝑐
𝑡𝐵 = =
√𝑐 2 − 𝑣 2 √1 − 𝑣 2 ⁄𝑐 2
If we assume 𝑣 ⁄𝑐 << 1 the time 𝑡𝐴 and 𝑡𝐵 can be expanded to the first order in
𝑣 2 ⁄𝑐 2 and the time difference taken:

2𝑙𝐴 2𝑙𝐵
𝑡𝐴 ≈ (1 + 𝑣 2 ⁄𝑐 2 ) 𝑡𝐵 ≈ (1 + 𝑣 2 ⁄2𝑐 2 )
𝑐 𝑐
2(𝑙𝐴 − 𝑙𝐵 ) 2𝑙𝐴 𝑣 2 𝑙𝐵 𝑣 2
𝛿 = (𝑡𝐴 − 𝑡𝐵 ) = + 3 − 3
𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
Now if the interferometer is rotated 90𝑜 , 𝑙𝐴 and 𝑙𝐵 are interchanged, and there is also
reversal of the time difference. Thus

′
2(𝑙𝐴 − 𝑙𝐵 ) 𝑙𝐴 𝑣 2 2𝑙𝐵 𝑣 2
𝛿 = + 3 − 3
𝑐 𝑐 𝑐
And the interference pattern observed would show a fringe shift of ∆𝑁 fringes, where
𝛿 − 𝛿 ′ 𝑐 (𝛿 − 𝛿 ′ ) 𝑣2
∆𝑁 = = = 2 (𝑙𝐴 + 𝑙𝐵 )
𝑇 𝜆 𝜆𝑐
Here 𝑇 & 𝜆 are the period wavelength of the light.
 50

Problems
1.1 Assume that the earth’s velocity through the ether is the same as
its orbital velocity, so that 𝑣 = 10−4 𝑐. Consider a Michelson-
Morley experiment where the arms of the interferometer are each
10 𝑚 long and one arm is in the direction of motion of the earth
through the ether. Calculate the difference in time for the two
light waves to travel along each of the arms.

1.2 The original Michelson-Morley experiment and an

interferometer with arms of 11 𝑚 and sodium light of 5900 𝐴𝑜 .
the experiment would reveal a fringe shift of 0.005 fringes. What
upper limit does a null result place on the speed of the earth
through the ether?

1.3 The truck in the figure is

moving at a speed of 10.0 m/s
relative to the ground. The
person on the truck throws a
baseball in the backward
direction at a speed of 20.0
m/s relative to the truck. What
is the velocity of the baseball
as measured by the observer on the ground?

1.4 A car of mass 2 000 kg moving with a speed of 20.0 𝑚/𝑠 collides
and locks together with a 1 500 kg car at rest at a stop sign. Show
that momentum is conserved in a reference frame moving at
10.0 𝑚/𝑠 in the direction of the moving car.

1.5 A car is traveling at a velocity of 95.0 𝑘𝑚/ℎ𝑟 to the right, with

respect to a telephone pole. A truck, which is behind the car, is
 51

also moving to the right at 65.0 𝑘𝑚/ℎ𝑟 with respect to the same
telephone pole. Find the relative velocity of the car with respect
to the truck.

1.6 An airplane is flying at speed 200 m/s with respect to the ground.
Sound wave 1 is approaching the plane from the front, while
sound wave 2 is catching up from behind. Both waves travel at
340 m/s relative to the ground. What is the velocity of each wave
relative to the plane?

1.7 A student is sitting 10.0 m away from the last wagon of a moving
train. It is moving towards the right with a speed of 4.00 m/s. If
the last wagon passes the end of the platform at t = 0, how far
away from the platform is the student at 5.00 s?

1.8 The student on the train of gets up and starts to walk. What is the
student’s speed relative to the platform if (a) the student walks
toward the front of the train at a speed of 2.00 m/s and (b) the
student walks toward the back of the train at a speed of 2.00 m/s?

1.9 In the Michelson-Morley experiment, (𝑙1 + 𝑙2 ) was 22 𝑚 and the

wavelength of light used was 6000 𝐴°. They assumed that ether is fixed
relative to the sun so that the earth and the interferometer move through
the ether at a velocity 𝑣 = 3x104 𝑚/𝑠, which is the orbital speed of the
earth about the sun. Calculate the fringe shift they expected to observe.
 52

1.10 Answer
I- You are in a windowless car in an exceptionally smooth train moving
at constant velocity Is there any physical experiment you can do in the
train car to determine whether you are moving? Explain.
II- You might have had the experience of being at a red light when, out of
the corner of your eye, you see the car beside you creep forward.
Instinctively you stomp on the brake pedal, thinking that you are rolling
backward what does this say about absolute and relative motion?
III- A worker stands on top of a railroad car moving at constant velocity
and throws a heavy ball straight up (from his point of view) Ignoring air
resistance, explain whether the ball will land back in his hand or behind
him.

1.11 Two equally matched rowers race each other over courses as shown in
figure. Each oarsman rows at speed 𝑐 in still water; the current in the river
moves at speed 𝑣. Boat 1 goes from 𝐴 𝑡𝑜 𝐵, a distance 𝐿, and back. Boat 2
goes from 𝐴 𝑡𝑜 𝐶, also a distance 𝐿, and back. 𝐴, 𝐵, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐶 are marks on
the riverbank. Which boat wins the race, or is it a tie? (Assume 𝑐 > 𝑣.)

1.12 F